this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2024
905 points (97.1% liked)

Technology

58712 readers
3999 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
(page 7) 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

"I know that it destroys our planet, but we shouldn't restrict my money generation machine" - person who wants infinite money

20 years later...

"It's too late now. You should've not dropped climate conservation and solved global warming without AI" - AI

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

Reality? Yeah I watched that on TV once. Didn't like it.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 week ago (3 children)

This is the kind of thing that makes me support use of extra-judicial methods (at least in a temporary and limited context) against global oligarchs and senior lackeys.

The host then followed up with, “Do you think we can meet AI’s energy without total blowing out climate goals?” and Schmidt answered with, “We’re not going to hit the climate goals anyway because we’re not organized to do it — and the way to do it is with the ways that we’re talking about now — and yes, the needs in this area will be a problem. But I’d rather bet on AI solving the problem than constraining it and having the problem if you see my plan.”

This is outright malicious. How exactly would AI "solve the problem"? Later on in the article (I am not watching the propaganda video) alludes to "AI ... will make energy generation systems at least 15% more efficient or maybe even better" but he clearly just made that up on the spot. And at any rate, even if "AI" helps discover a method to make (all?) energy generation 15% more efficient that would still require trillion-dollar investments to modify current energy generation plants using the new technology.

Who is Schmidt to say that the returns of using the total spend in the above-mentioned scenario wouldn't be better used on investing into wind and solar?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago (2 children)

not gonna happen, this would break thermodynamics. he made that up on the spot, he's full of shit and he knows it

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Why should a 15 % improvement break that?

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 95 points 1 week ago
[–] [email protected] 323 points 1 week ago (16 children)

AI isn't going to come with a new magic solution to global warming, it's going to come with the same solutions we already have. Solutions which we should already be doing, but instead we're listening to these fucks with too much money.

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] [email protected] 33 points 1 week ago (6 children)

solving global warming is really simple: kill off all human beings.

i wonder how long ai algorithms will take to figure that out.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 102 points 1 week ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago

He's just trying to subvert expectations, why not make things worse when you can't make things better!

/s

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›